Kevin Bieksa you are really...

[bbllpp]

Isn't the objective of any PP unit, 1st or 2nd, to score PP goals? That is a lot different than a 3rd line that is not designed to be scoring as much as the 1st line.

You guys can keep hoping that the 1st unit carries this team all the way this season because if the 1st unit cools down or starts getting shut down, or heaven forbid we get an injury to a Sedin, I would feel more comfortable having at least a moderately threatening 2nd unit to pick up the slack. The best time to get that unit going is before the 1st unit struggles.

I am a fan of the team and want the team to do well. I don't want them to ever think anything is good enough because that mentality is what ultimately costs this team at critical times.

Oh, let's defend a 1 or 2 goal lead....we're winning so that must mean we are guaranteed to win, right? Oops, we lost.....what happened?

Oh, our PP is #1 so why bother trying to make it even better? The reality is that there are about 9 teams that could pass the Canucks for the PP lead by having even two great PP% games and the Canucks having two o-fers on the PP. We are not head and shoulders above the rest.

Here is a news flash for all you guys: The truly great teams ALWAYS strive to be not only better but dominating. When they are at the top, they want to be on top by even more. That is a championship mentality.

What possible argument do you guys have to not try to improve a woeful 2nd unit? I mean, other than it wouldn't be fair to Bieksa? Shouldn't the team ALWAYS want to improve?

I've been with you on this from the beginning (Except that it is Bieksa who needs to be changed)

Individually there is nothing wrong with these guys but they just seem to have no chemistry at time. If changing Bieksa for Ballard is the solution then I am all for it but I am not as convinced as you are.

That 5 minute man advantage was painful to watch

[Sharpshooter]

Isn't the objective of any PP unit, 1st or 2nd, to score PP goals? That is a lot different than a 3rd line that is not designed to be scoring as much as the 1st line.

You guys can keep hoping that the 1st unit carries this team all the way this season because if the 1st unit cools down or starts getting shut down, or heaven forbid we get an injury to a Sedin, I would feel more comfortable having at least a moderately threatening 2nd unit to pick up the slack. The best time to get that unit going is before the 1st unit struggles.

I am a fan of the team and want the team to do well. I don't want them to ever think anything is good enough because that mentality is what ultimately costs this team at critical times.

Oh, let's defend a 1 or 2 goal lead....we're winning so that must mean we are guaranteed to win, right? Oops, we lost.....what happened?

Oh, our PP is #1 so why bother trying to make it even better? The reality is that there are about 9 teams that could pass the Canucks for the PP lead by having even two great PP% games and the Canucks having two o-fers on the PP. We are not head and shoulders above the rest.

Here is a news flash for all you guys: The truly great teams ALWAYS strive to be not only better but dominating. When they are at the top, they want to be on top by even more. That is a championship mentality.

What possible argument do you guys have to not try to improve a woeful 2nd unit? I mean, other than it wouldn't be fair to Bieksa? Shouldn't the team ALWAYS want to improve?

I'm pretty sure, the forward lines are called scoring lines. Some have a more checking role, some a two way role, some a more offencive role. But they are all scoring lines, nonetheless.

So, the design, is for all lines to score. Do they? Nope. Because the talent is usually top heavy. Kinda like the difference between the 1st and 2nd PP's. Oh, and it helps when the 1st PP gets the bulk of most of the total PP time.....just saying.

And how would that be unfair to Bieksa. Any improvement to the forwards that are on the 2nd PP would only be a benefit to him or other offencively capable dmen, like Ballard.

We don't need to fix what is not broken...because micromanaging the overall PP which is a construct of 2 units, doesn't really need it. It would be great but tinkering with things while they are working well, often leads to a lessening of that part to the overall benefit derived from it. I mean why go down that slippery slope? Why not break it down even more and start tinkering with every single player in every unit, on every special team and also take that into the 1st line....i mean, couldn't the 1st line be better theoretically?

[BedBeats™2.0]

nhl.com for all stats

averaging the 1st unit forwards PPTOI Henrik, Daniel, and Kesler

averaging the 2nd unit forwards PPTOI Torres+Malhotra,Samuelsson and Raymond

Malhotra comes on for the face-offs and Torres comes on on the fly I count them as 1 player for average ice time for the second unit. This has been the most consistent second unit

it's rough I know but close enough

Henrik, Kesler and Daniel (a pretty constant pairing) have all been on for 16 PPGF the Canucks have 23 PPGF thus the 2nd unit has 7 PPGF

PPTOI/PPGF for PPGF in terms of minutes played

100%*(2nd unit PPTOI)/[(1st unit PPTOI)+(2nd unit PPTOI)]= % PPTOI for 2nd unit

Thank you for the research...it very much qualifies some points a few coaching friends of mine have been pointing out about the Canucks PP.

It will be fantastic when Burr heats up even more on the PP...the second unit is where you see a different look(s) for the PP. (The first unit has a few different looks as well.)

Its probably why both units have been difficult to play against.....sometimes AV/Brown have kept the LH point shots with the 2nd unit and we have seen some greasy goals.

Now the 2nd unit has changed even more with adding Sammy every second PP with him on the point and playing that hybrid umbrella that the Wings used with Sammy.

It is evident that while the first PP has been producing more, both units have sooooooooo many configurations and have been using many different plays.

Wanna collapse the net?! Then you see Kes screening. Pressure the carrier??!!! Overload any side, Hank on his natural side QB'ing, and Kes QB'ing the other...etc, etc.

Whatever Brown/AV are doing.....they are sending the word out with this team, you take penalties against the Canucks...they will make you pay....and pay in ways that even your video guy cannot even scout properly.

Now i know exactly why Newell Brown was employed.

[bbllpp]

Thanks.

Reasonable stats, but you really should factor in how many of their PP goals came with who. I would suspect that especially the D and Sammy would have some PP points scored while playing with the twins or during mid-PP line changes. I don't know where you would find the stats for that though, but your analysis is not foolproof and based on the pretty small sample of games played relative to a full season, could actually be significantly skewed with even one or two goals scored on the other PP unit.

Of course, that is if you are trying to separate the actual production and worth of the 2nd unit as a whole.

The info is out there but it is just too tedious to go through for the time I have to spend.

I totally agree with your last statement. I have found that for the most part the chances for the 2nd unit come more from fortune than skill and hard work. Their production has come from their ability to score on this good fortune (Raymond last night is a fine example).

The 2nd was a great read by Hamhuis to jump in the rush as the 4th man.

[ramone1984]

Isn't it great to be able to complain about the Canucks 2nd unit when they have as many PP goals as Florida and the Devils playing around 37% of the teams PP minutes, producing at a per minute pace at about 120% that of the twins last year on the PP.

And they still look terrible at times!

I read your formula for calculating this. That is definitely a great thing that we can complain about this! That's actually hard to believe they're scoring at a faster clip than the twins last year on the PP? Wow.

As others have mentioned, the 2nd unit doesn't play the same puck control style we're used to seeing, so it doesn't look like they're controlling the play like the twins do. I guess if the goals are coming though.... Wallstreet brings up a valid point though, some of the goals you used in your calculation could have been scored while playing with the twins.

Either way that 5 minute power play was painful last night....

[BedBeats™2.0]

As a footnote...i am not sure why the players were so passive on the 5 minute PP.

Probably clock-watching, would be my reasonable guess, and feeling they could be more slick and patient.

But i betcha you will never see that again from both units.

[bbllpp]

I read your formula for calculating this.  That is definitely a great thing that we can complain about this!  That's actually hard to believe they're scoring at a faster clip than the twins last year on the PP?  Wow.

As others have mentioned, the 2nd unit doesn't play the same puck control style we're used to seeing, so it doesn't look like they're controlling the play like the twins do.  I guess if the goals are coming though....  Wallstreet brings up a valid point though, some of the goals you used in your calculation could have been scored while playing with the twins.

Either way that 5 minute power play was painful last night....

The twins have been on the ice for 16 PPGF the canucks have score 23 PPGF therefore it is safe to say that the 2nd unit in some iteration or other is responsible for the other 7. This is how I calculated these numbers. Sure there are crossovers of the units at times as lines are changing and goals have been scored at these time Ehrhoff coming on 5s before Hamhuis scores on a play started by Ballard last night is a prime example. However the first unit has been together pretty consistently for the most part so using the 16 PPGF for the twins and Kesler as a guide line is not too bad of an assumption.

What wallstreet is more right about is that at this point in the season a 2 goal game for the 2nd unit has a big affect on this stat.

[wallstreetamigo]

I've been with you on this from the beginning (Except that it is Bieksa who needs to be changed)

Individually there is nothing wrong with these guys but they just seem to have no chemistry at time. If changing Bieksa for Ballard is the solution then I am all for it but I am not as convinced as you are.

That 5 minute man advantage was painful to watch

I have also said that I do not know if changing Bieksa is the answer. What I have said is that there is no reason not to try it as the D production has not been very good at all nor has the chemistry, as you mention.

The prevailing opinion of me as a Bieksa hater keeps many of you guys from understanding that I am not saying Bieksa is the only problem there. I am saying his lack of production combined with him getting a ton of opportunity so far suggests that maybe it is time to give Ballard a shot to see if he is any better. He might not be, who knows. But having 5 or 6 guys capable and comfortable on the PP sure gives AV options if a certain guy goes cold there for a few games.

The D on the 2nd unit has been very ineffective all the way around. Bieksa is the only constant on the 2nd PP D this season. I say try it without him for a couple of games and see what happens. How can it hurt at this point?

[ramone1984]

The twins have been on the ice for 16 PPGF the canucks have score 23 PPGF therefore it is safe to say that the 2nd unit in some iteration or other is responsible for the other 7. This is how I calculated these numbers. Sure there are crossovers of the units at times as lines are changing and goals have been scored at these time Ehrhoff coming on 5s before Hamhuis scores on a play started by Ballard last night is a prime example. However the first unit has been together pretty consistently for the most part so using the 16 PPGF for the twins and Kesler as a guide line is not too bad of an assumption.

What wallstreet is more right about is that at this point in the season a 2 goal game for the 2nd unit has a big affect on this stat.

Fair enough, you're right. My brain was interpreting that a little differently (and incorrectly). Thanks for clarifying, and for sharing the stat. It'll be interesting to see how these numbers shape up as the season progresses.

Cheers

Ramone

[Sharpshooter]

I have also said that I do not know if changing Bieksa is the answer. What I have said is that there is no reason not to try it as the D production has not been very good at all nor has the chemistry, as you mention.

The prevailing opinion of me as a Bieksa hater keeps many of you guys from understanding that I am not saying Bieksa is the only problem there. I am saying his lack of production combined with him getting a ton of opportunity so far suggests that maybe it is time to give Ballard a shot to see if he is any better. He might not be, who knows. But having 5 or 6 guys capable and comfortable on the PP sure gives AV options if a certain guy goes cold there for a few games.

The D on the 2nd unit has been very ineffective all the way around. Bieksa is the only constant on the 2nd PP D this season. I say try it without him for a couple of games and see what happens. How can it hurt at this point?

It's because you seem to keep blaming Bieksa for the 2nd unit's woes. I mean, he is the only constant!! Right!?

Your insinuation pisses me off. Why not argue for the likes of Rome or Hamhuis to be replaced by Ballard? I'd be quite comfortable with that as well. You just come off as blaming him...that;s why you're getting a little pushback. I don't want to speak for anyone else...so i'm just speaking for myself i guess. I think Malhotra and Bieksa have been the better of the 5 man unit, based on bbllpp's stats, so if you want to substitute someone, why not look at the other three first? You keep pushing for Ballard in place of Bieksa all the time....it's getting more than apparent.

Oh and before you use the standard response of "That's not what I said" or "Show me where I said that" we all know what you mean...aside from me perhaps....we're not all idiots.

[wallstreetamigo]

As a footnote...i am not sure why the players were so passive on the 5 minute PP.

Probably clock-watching, would be my reasonable guess, and feeling they could be more slick and patient.

But i betcha you will never see that again from both units.

That was a brutal 5 minute PP for sure. No one looked good.

That is the kind of thing that concerns me about the Canucks as a team though. They get those juicy opportunities mid game to lay the hammer down in a close game and really take control and they let their foot off the gas and play with zero urgency and focus. It's not the first time I have seen it with them. Even 5 on 3 situations they sometimes do the same thing. They need to develop a killer instinct in those situations. Like the Hawks. Or the Capitals. Or the Penguins. Or the Red Wings. You know, teams that want to dominate their opponents. They will need that mindset in the playoffs.

Sure, they did take over the game and dominate in the 3rd, but one tying goal from the Flames instead of that shorty by Raymond and that could have been a very different game.

[BedBeats™2.0]

It's because you seem to keep blaming Bieksa for the 2nd unit's woes. I mean, he is the only constant!! Right!?

Your insinuation pisses me off. Why not argue for the likes of Rome or Hamhuis to be replaced by Ballard? I'd be quite comfortable with that as well. You just come off as blaming him...that;s why you're getting a little pushback. I don't want to speak for anyone else...so i'm just speaking for myself i guess. I think Malhotra and Bieksa have been the better of the 5 man unit, based on bbllpp's stats, so if you want to substitute someone, why not look at the other three first? You keep pushing for Ballard in place of Bieksa all the time....it's getting more than apparent.

Oh and before you use the standard response of "That's not what I said" or "Show me where I said that" we all know what you mean...aside from me perhaps....we're not all idiots.

No matter what...if anyone has their patented Bieksa bias...for whatever fictional reason....that 2nd unit will look different again.

Not sure why WSA is pining for Bieksa to be replaced...there was a PP where Bieksa was not even on ANY of the PP lines.

And im not sure why anyone would pull for Ballard when he is not ready.....you should cheering on Hammer because he is finally being used on the PP....or at least getting some game time looks for once.

Ya gotsta watch the frigging games instead of obsessing for Bieksa mistakes.

Am i the only one that notices these things?!!!

[ramone1984]

That was a brutal 5 minute PP for sure. No one looked good.

That is the kind of thing that concerns me about the Canucks as a team though. They get those juicy opportunities mid game to lay the hammer down in a close game and really take control and they let their foot off the gas and play with zero urgency and focus. It's not the first time I have seen it with them. Even 5 on 3 situations they sometimes do the same thing. They need to develop a killer instinct in those situations. Like the Hawks. Or the Capitals. Or the Penguins. Or the Red Wings. You know, teams that want to dominate their opponents. They will need that mindset in the playoffs.

Sure, they did take over the game and dominate in the 3rd, but one tying goal from the Flames instead of that shorty by Raymond and that could have been a very different game.

I completely agree with you. The flames were really pressing for a while there when it was still a tight game. Leading up to that 5 minute major, I thought they were controlling the play pretty well. It took us out of the hot seat and gave the Canucks a chance to take back the momentum, and they squandered it.

Full marks to the flames for a solid PK as well though.

[BedBeats™2.0]

That was a brutal 5 minute PP for sure. No one looked good.

That is the kind of thing that concerns me about the Canucks as a team though. They get those juicy opportunities mid game to lay the hammer down in a close game and really take control and they let their foot off the gas and play with zero urgency and focus. It's not the first time I have seen it with them. Even 5 on 3 situations they sometimes do the same thing. They need to develop a killer instinct in those situations. Like the Hawks. Or the Capitals. Or the Penguins. Or the Red Wings. You know, teams that want to dominate their opponents. They will need that mindset in the playoffs.

Sure, they did take over the game and dominate in the 3rd, but one tying goal from the Flames instead of that shorty by Raymond and that could have been a very different game.

I think we have only had one 5 on 3 ever this season...and im sure one of the Twins scored....even then im almost thinking i am mistaken, we havent even had one yet.

The lack of production on that 5 minute PP really is not a pressing concern...at this rate of the kinds of success they are having, they will adjust.

Ever since their own blowout...everyone has tweaked all of the weak things radically and have not looked back.

I expect that the next time we see the Canucks go on the PP for 5 minutes.

Funnily enough ive seen all of those teams with zero killer instinct on key points in their games, actually thats not true, the Caps usually keep on the pressure...but have gotten it from different guys when Ovie and Green and a few others have been outright invisible.

BTW....go to that Flames fan forum...they dug up a quote that Sutter was pissed that AV used the Twins PP unit after the score was out of hand.

[wallstreetamigo]

It's because you seem to keep blaming Bieksa for the 2nd unit's woes. I mean, he is the only constant!! Right!?

Your insinuation pisses me off. Why not argue for the likes of Rome or Hamhuis to be replaced by Ballard? I'd be quite comfortable with that as well. You just come off as blaming him...that;s why you're getting a little pushback. I don't want to speak for anyone else...so i'm just speaking for myself i guess. I think Malhotra and Bieksa have been the better of the 5 man unit, based on bbllpp's stats, so if you want to substitute someone, why not look at the other three first? You keep pushing for Ballard in place of Bieksa all the time....it's getting more than apparent.

Oh and before you use the standard response of "That's not what I said" or "Show me where I said that" we all know what you mean...aside from me perhaps....we're not all idiots.

He is the only constant on the D of the 2nd unit, as I said. That is actually a fact not an opinion. I am not blaming him for everything, you just choose to think I am saying that despite me clarifying several times that I am not and why I am not.

Let me say first, in my opinion Rome should NEVER be on the PP, unless the only alternative is Alberts. Even Alberts might be worth a look over Rome.

Hamhuis could be replaced by Ballard too, and I have actually said that Ballard-Bieksa is worth a look too. Bieksa has gotten time with a few different partners and has failed to get going on the PP. Let some other pairings work a bit and see if they are better and can produce more. That is nothing more than a prudent thing to do. The only other pairing that has yet to be used much on the PP together is Hamhuis and Ballard. And the limited time they did have they managed to produce a goal. That's not the end all and be all of course, but it is something to think about. Seeing more of them together has zero downside. Why not try it?

I am getting pushback because you feel that Bieksa is entitled to a spot on the PP when his lack of production says he should not be automatically entitled to anything.

I could care less if I piss you off because I have no control over that. When I ask you to point to where I said whatever stupid thing it is that you are assuming and suggesting I said, it is because 9 times out of 10, the post you are referring to actually states something quite different. You just choose to ignore my actual words and come up with your own theory on what I am saying. I can't control your perception, flawed as it is when it comes to what I am saying most of the time.

[BedBeats™2.0]

ARRRRGHHHH!

The 2nd unit featured NO BIEKSA on a few PP chances!!!

Jesus fricking Christ.

[wallstreetamigo]

I think we have only had one 5 on 3 ever this season...and im sure one of the Twins scored.

The lack of production on that 5 minute PP really is not a pressing concern...at this rate of the kinds of success they are having, they will adjust.

Ever sinve their own blowout...everyone has tweaked all of the weak things radically and have not looked back.

I expect that the next time we see the Canucks go on the PP for 5 minutes.

Funnily enough ive seen all of those teams with zero killer instinct on key points in their games, actually thats not true, the Caps usually keep on the pressure...but have gotten it from different guys when Ovie and Green and a few others have been outright invisible.

BTW....go to that Flames fan forum...they dug up a quote that Sutter was pissed that AV used the Twins PP unit after the score was out of hand.

With the 5 on 3's I was talking previous years, not this year. The trend to not have the killer instinct has been present all throughout AV's time here. No, I am not saying it is all his fault or anything, but his coaching decisions do point to taking their foot off the gas at times. Sitting on leads for example. Or putting 4th liners out on the PP in a 3-2 game. Little things that suggest he is going a bit easy on opponents. He needs to adjust his way of thinking a bit and the players need to go for the jugular when the opportunity arises.

Also, all teams go through spurts where they play lackluster at critical times. That wasn't my point. My point was that the Canucks have had a bad habit the past few years of doing it a lot more than the elite teams do and at much more critical times in games.

Sutter should be more pissed that he is a terrible coach who can't even send a message to his players properly (5 dmen out on the PP....WTF...lol). He should also be thankful that the Canucks took it easy on them on the 5 min PP. It could have been a lot worse.

[BedBeats™2.0]

With the 5 on 3's I was talking previous years, not this year. The trend to not have the killer instinct has been present all throughout AV's time here. No, I am not saying it is all his fault or anything, but his coaching decisions do point to taking their foot off the gas at times. Sitting on leads for example. Or putting 4th liners out on the PP in a 3-2 game. Little things that suggest he is going a bit easy on opponents. He needs to adjust his way of thinking a bit and the players need to go for the jugular when the opportunity arises.

Also, all teams go through spurts where they play lackluster at critical times. That wasn't my point. My point was that the Canucks have had a bad habit the past few years of doing it a lot more than the elite teams do and at much more critical times in games.

Sutter should be more pissed that he is a terrible coach who can't even send a message to his players properly (5 dmen out on the PP....WTF...lol). He should also be thankful that the Canucks took it easy on them on the 5 min PP. It could have been a lot worse.

It is never a coaching decision that players back off....the ONLY exception in recent years are last season's Bruins with Julien at the helm.

From almost day one when kids are getting their feet wet in being coached defence...they are taught, and sometimes preached that you sit on a lead with "X" posturing....they are also sometimes taught to respect their opponents by not running up the score...my one buddy who is a coach thinks thats BS, and is hardly taught anymore (running up the score).

All players habitually tend to posture more defensively....the very,very,very few times it happened last year i nearly threw a goddamned fit. And i am sure AV/Walt/Bones were having the same fits.

That is playing "scared Hockey" as Hitch is fond to say.

If anyone with better internet skills than i can help out, there was either a clip or a quote by either Mitch or someone else on the Canucks roster last season, that revealed that it is actually the players that tend to want to sit back on leads and it has nothing to do with the coaches. It has been driving me absolutely crazy that i cannot find this...because i really want to kill this perception and myth that AV asks his players to sit back on leads, which really hasnt happened from the bench the past 2 1/2 seasons.

Also coach Sutter is not the problem with the Flames....first its the players, then its his idiot brother for giving those players free passes for showing up whenever they want.

As much as i hate the Flames....i do feel for coach Sutter and the fans to have to suffer through their core playing so far below their skill level.

Suffice to say.....if the players truly care about one another because they certainly did not honour Kipper with any effort and not start being accountable for playing like a bunch of goddamned drunk millionaires.

But i dont want them to get that much better.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

No matter what...if anyone has their patented Bieksa bias...for whatever fictional reason....that 2nd unit will look different again.

Not sure why WSA is pining for Bieksa to be replaced...there was a PP where Bieksa was not even on ANY of the PP lines.

And im not sure why anyone would pull for Ballard when he is not ready.....you should cheering on Hammer because he is finally being used on the PP....or at least getting some game time looks for once.

Ya gotsta watch the frigging games instead of obsessing for Bieksa mistakes.

Am i the only one that notices these things?!!!

Look I don't mean to correct you in front of everybody here but something you said here is so incredibly irritating to me.

It's WSL not WSA.

(You might not get it Beds but wallstreet will)

[wallstreetamigo]

No matter what...if anyone has their patented Bieksa bias...for whatever fictional reason....that 2nd unit will look different again.

Not sure why WSA is pining for Bieksa to be replaced...there was a PP where Bieksa was not even on ANY of the PP lines.

And im not sure why anyone would pull for Ballard when he is not ready.....you should cheering on Hammer because he is finally being used on the PP....or at least getting some game time looks for once.

Ya gotsta watch the frigging games instead of obsessing for Bieksa mistakes.

Am i the only one that notices these things?!!!

I want Bieksa replaced because he has done nothing with the time he has been given and I would like to see what others can do in that spot......how hard is that to understand?

Wow, one PP in 22 games where Bieksa was not on it? I guess AV sure showed him!

How is asking for someone else to get a chance on the PP obsessing about Bieksa's mistakes? Bieksa just happens to be doing nothing with the significant time he gets there. If it was Ehrhoff I would say the same thing. We have options, and wanting the coach to explore those options is only a bad idea to people who think Bieksa is entitled to a PP spot no matter how he performs there.

So, if a guy is not 100% healthy, we shouldn't pull for him to help the team? That makes sense.